It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Air Line Pilots in a Christmas GyroKill?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Since when does the american people have the power to decide what goes into a plane? If Beoing wants to upgrade thier sytem what are the american poeple going to do to stop it ? Its not like the american poeple are going to just stop flying, specially of they are told it will make thier flight safer.


i've answered that question three times now....im done repeating myself.














posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Since when does the american people have the power to decide what goes into a plane? If Beoing wants to upgrade thier sytem what are the american poeple going to do to stop it ? Its not like the american poeple are going to just stop flying, specially of they are told it will make thier flight safer.


i've answered that question three times now....im done repeating myself.


People are not going to stop Boeing or anyone else from putitng in these systems, some are already in foreign built aircraft.










posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
care to provide some proof of that? the only thing i've seen so far are plans and patents.

and yes (for the fourth time), in the interest of safety, the unions will ensure that these devices are never installed in US aircraft.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
care to provide some proof of that? the only thing i've seen so far are plans and patents.

and yes (for the fourth time), in the interest of safety, the unions will ensure that these devices are never installed in US aircraft.


I can not give out alot of information on some of the systems but you might want to do some research in the area of these systems that can be controlled or updated to be controlled by ground stations.

Inmarsat systems
aero.inmarsat.com...

The avionics on the AN-124 (Russian cargo plane)
www.airforce-technology.com...

The AN/ARC-190 and similar systems
www.globalsecurity.org...

This European system.
www.eurocontrol.int...

Just a few samples of systems that are in place or can be updated to be remoted from the ground.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Inmarsat systems
aero.inmarsat.com...




Inmarsat's portfolio of mobile satellite services supports a wide range of high-quality communications links - voice, fax and data - for air transport, business aviation and government users.


communications



The avionics on the AN-124 (Russian cargo plane)
www.airforce-technology.com...




There are 34 computers functioning aboard the aircraft, combined into four main systems: navigation, automatic piloting, remote control and monitoring.


that's pretty vague, and i can find nothing else which clarifies what they mean by "remote control." however, it is a military aircraft, not a civilian airliner.



The AN/ARC-190 and similar systems
www.globalsecurity.org...




The ARC-190 is composed of several subsystems:
RT-1341(V) Receiver Transmitter
C-10828(V) Remote Control
CP-2024(C) Automatic Communications Processor
CU-2275(V)1, or similar, Antenna Coupler


again, military aircraft...and the more i read up on this technology, the more i start to understand that they are talking about remote control of the radio systems, not navigational systems. further in depth reading finds that this is a new feature on all radio systems in the US inventory.....ground and air. in fact, the seabees manual i just read explains how to use the radio remotely from up to two miles away in order to get a better reception while the user is still in a safe spot out of the line of fire.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700


The ARC-190 is composed of several subsystems:
RT-1341(V) Receiver Transmitter
C-10828(V) Remote Control
CP-2024(C) Automatic Communications Processor
CU-2275(V)1, or similar, Antenna Coupler


again, military aircraft...and the more i read up on this technology, the more i start to understand that they are talking about remote control of the radio systems, not navigational systems. further in depth reading finds that this is a new feature on all radio systems in the US inventory.....ground and air. in fact, the seabees manual i just read explains how to use the radio remotely from up to two miles away in order to get a better reception while the user is still in a safe spot out of the line of fire.


The point i was trying to make was that thier are sytems out there that would not take much if any updating and could be taken over by remote control thats all.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
everything you've shown me was either:

a. plans on a drawing board
b. patents submitted to the US patent office
c. military hardware.

nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate use by civilian airliners. i'll say it one last time, and then i will be truly sick of repeating myself:

the unions will not let civilian airliners be set up for remote piloting. safety of the flying public is our primary concern, and we will not let something like this be implemented. i dont know how to make it any plainer to you ultimate. it wont happen. period.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
everything you've shown me was either:

a. plans on a drawing board
b. patents submitted to the US patent office
c. military hardware.

nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate use by civilian airliners. i'll say it one last time, and then i will be truly sick of repeating myself:

the unions will not let civilian airliners be set up for remote piloting. safety of the flying public is our primary concern, and we will not let something like this be implemented. i dont know how to make it any plainer to you ultimate. it wont happen. period.


But what if the government or airlines orders it put in, and people agree because they think it makes the safer ? It will be just like the Patriot Act.

And don't you think that if military aircraft can be remoted whats to stop airliners, the systems are basically the same.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But what if the government or airlines orders it put in, and people agree because they think it makes the safer ? It will be just like the Patriot Act.

And don't you think that if military aircraft can be remoted whats to stop airliners, the systems are basically the same.


read my last post again...and again....and again....as many times as it takes for it to finally sink in, because i just dont know any other way to explain it to you.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
read my last post again...and again....and again....as many times as it takes for it to finally sink in, because i just dont know any other way to explain it to you.


Please show me anytime that the people (UNIONS) have stopped equipment being put into any aircraft for any reason.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
it was a union member who brought up the possibility of RF interference to cockpit instruments from cell phones and other portable electronic devices (hf interference discussed here). hence the banning of cell phone use on airliners.

the unions are constantly bringing safety hazards to the attention of the faa. they are one of the main reasons the airspace system is as safe as it is. do some research and you will find many many instances of union intervention (or in most cases, union employees working directly with the faa to insure the safety of new equipment).

automation of both aircraft and controlling has been discussed time and time again in the aviation community. each time it has been shot down for safety reasons. nobody will fly in an aicraft with an unmanned cockpit, and nobody will fly with an unmanned atc environment. equipment malfunctions, and it is necessary to have a live person there when it does.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
it was a union member who brought up the possibility of RF interference to cockpit instruments from cell phones and other portable electronic devices (hf interference discussed here). hence the banning of cell phone use on airliners.

the unions are constantly bringing safety hazards to the attention of the faa. they are one of the main reasons the airspace system is as safe as it is. do some research and you will find many many instances of union intervention (or in most cases, union employees working directly with the faa to insure the safety of new equipment).

automation of both aircraft and controlling has been discussed time and time again in the aviation community. each time it has been shot down for safety reasons. nobody will fly in an aicraft with an unmanned cockpit, and nobody will fly with an unmanned atc environment. equipment malfunctions, and it is necessary to have a live person there when it does.



So you would stop a system from being put into a aircraft that could save hundreds or thousands of lives if it takes the controll away form the terrorist ?

If the planes on 911 had a system to stop the terrorist from flying into the towers you would not have not have wanted it put to use ? You would have left the terrorist fly the planes into the towers ?



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you would stop a system from being put into a aircraft that could save hundreds or thousands of lives if it takes the controll away form the terrorist ?


it would also take all the control away from the pilot in charge, and as systems have a tendency to malfunction, it could very well happen that it goes into auto on its own, and the pilot just has to sit and take it. furthermore, the system could be hacked into and used by the terrorists. so yes, i would do everything i could to keep control of aircraft in the pilot's hands, and not some computer or remote access for the military.



If the planes on 911 had a system to stop the terrorist from flying into the towers you would not have not have wanted it put to use ? You would have left the terrorist fly the planes into the towers ?


but they didnt. and they wont. moot point. werent you against this being used in aircraft to begin with? it seems to me that now youre just being argumentative for the sake of argument.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you would stop a system from being put into a aircraft that could save hundreds or thousands of lives if it takes the controll away form the terrorist ?


it would also take all the control away from the pilot in charge, and as systems have a tendency to malfunction, it could very well happen that it goes into auto on its own, and the pilot just has to sit and take it. furthermore, the system could be hacked into and used by the terrorists. so yes, i would do everything i could to keep control of aircraft in the pilot's hands, and not some computer or remote access for the military.




If the planes on 911 had a system to stop the terrorist from flying into the towers you would not have not have wanted it put to use ? You would have left the terrorist fly the planes into the towers ?


but they didnt. and they wont. moot point. werent you against this being used in aircraft to begin with? it seems to me that now youre just being argumentative for the sake of argument.


I never said i was for or against it, i am just stating points. Such as possability of saving lives.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join